The Christology of Pope Shenouda of the Copts causes conniptions with the Chalcedonian Orthodox.

Reading a few articles here will dispel the idea that there are no problems between our theologieshttp://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_mono.aspx[/quote]Father, this seems to have been pulled: I keep on getting a blank page, even with the way back machine.

He even chose the timing of the visit to coincide with the Monophysite feast of Theophany so that he could celebrate the feast with them for a second time.

It's the Orthodox feast of Theophany, moreover the Ethiopians celebrate it on the Old Calendar.

Quote

The real meaning of this visit is the expression of remorse and repentance. This official visit carries the message.. "You Monophysites assumed certain extreme positions in the past. But the Fourth Ecumenical Council and the Fifth, Sixth, and the Seventh that came thereafter likewise deviated. Times have changed and a new age has dawned on Orthodoxy, and the correction of the Ecumenical Councils and the new interpretation of the Bible has begun"! Church receptions, common prayers, and doxologies took place. In short, a complete recognition of the heresy of monophysitism.

Since the Ethiopians, like the rest of the OO, anathematize Eutychus, what recognition is going on here? Who are they quoting?

Quote

"You are truly blessed. While the Old Israel laments destruction [of the Temple of Solomon], you rejoice in the divine services and the glorification of the Lord in this holy temple."! But, Bartholomew, the Lord does not dwell in man-made temples, neither does He rest in the "services" of the misbelieving heretics. God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth, as the Lord said to the Samaritan Woman.

The temples of Mt. Athos are man-made, but I doubt anyone would criticize comparisons of it to Mt. Zion, as none did when Justinian compared Hagia Sophia to Solomon's Temple.

Quote

Monophysites are not "brothers in Christ." Heretical Monophysites are not one family [a new ecumenical term] with the Orthodox. The reasons for their condemnation by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils have never been annulled, nor have they repented in order to become members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. That trip's aim was a traitorous and strong-armed unification. Patriarch Bartholomew, following the example of the Patriarch of Antioch, came for ecclesiastical communion and common prayer with the heretical Monophysites. Communions such as this are no longer criticized, but they are passed in silence and downgraded to a mere formality. Bartholomew, pointing out the "mistakes" by the Ecumenical Councils of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church said, "The large Christian family gathers again, and the Church has come out of her isolation that past mistakes and painful historical circumstances had imposed on her. As evidence we point to the current successful conclusion of the dialogue with the Ethiopian Church." (Nea, January ~, 1995)

The Councils mentioned do not condemn what the OO believe except for the Sixth:the Fourth deposed Pope Dioscoros (while restoring those he deposed, Theodoret and Ibas, whom the Fifth Council anathematized, at least some of their alleged writings), but didn't mention him at all in its definition, the Sixth makes a passing reference to Pope Dioscoros as "hated of God," something the Fathers of Chalcedon did not say of him.

Though this is a ROCOR site, the statement doesn't seem to be ROCOR's (though that doesn't mean they wouldn't agree with it).

from the same website:

Quote

Anyone looking at photographs and portraits of clergy in Greece, Russia, Rumania, and other Orthodox countries taken in the early twentieth century will notice that almost without exception both the monastic and married clergy, priests and deacons, wore untrimmed beards and hair. Only after the First World War do we observe a new, modern look, cropped hair and beardless clergy. This fashion has been continued among some of the clergy to our own day. If one were to investigate this phenomenon in terms of a single clergyman whose life spanned the greater part of our century one would probably notice his style modernize from the first photographs up through the last.

There are two reasons given as an explanation for this change: it is said, "One must conform with fashion, we cannot look like peasants!" Or even more absurd, "My wife will not allow it!". Such reasoning is the "dogmatic" line of modernists who either desire to imitate contemporary fashion (if beards are "in," they wear beards, if beards are "out," they shave), or are ecumenically minded, not wanting to offend clergy in denominations outside the Orthodox Church. The other reason is based on a passage of Holy Scripture where Saint Paul states, Both not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (I Cor. 11:14) In answer to the first justification, Orthodox tradition directly condemns Modernism and Ecumenism. It is necessary however to deal in more detail with the argument that bases its premise on Holy Scripture.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?

LOL. Why the demand of the submission of the will and assent of faith to your supreme pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra?

Melkite Catholics, and probably other Eastern Catholics, reject papal infalliblity. They point out that Vatican I is a (regional) General Council of the Church of Rome, it is not Ecumenical and it is not binding on the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches.

Oddly enough, the Vatican does nothing to prohibit this. And yet the Eastern Catholics incur an Anathema by denying the Pope's infallibility!!

According to Canon 597 of the Code of canons of Oriental Churches:Canon 5971. The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher ofall the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believersin the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrineof faith or morals is to be held.http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM

So what do you do with Eastern Catholics who openly reject papal infallibility?

An Eastern Catholic statement:

o.....Since the Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox do not understand Original Sin in the same way as the Latins, the concept of the Immaculate Conception makes no sense in Eastern theology

o.....The Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox believe that only an Ecumenical Council can declare dogma [this is a rejection of Canon you quote.]

Some Eastern Catholics have their own interpretation of this, but I don't see how they get around the canon of the Church. Obviously, many people believe that there needs to be further study on this point not only as it applies to Eastern Catholics, but how it would be interpreted in a unified Church, East and West. There has been talk by some theologians of the RCC of going back to the time before 1054 and appplying the teaching on primacy that was in effect at that time, but that is only a study at this time.

"Orthodox Life" is the English language periodical from the monastery of Jordanville. Published with the Blessing of the First Hierarch. In 1995 that was Metropolitam Vitaly (Ustinov.)

It is translated from Greek (judging from what it says in the statement and after it). Does ROCOR issue statements in Greek? I took it as from the period of rapproachment between ROCOR and the "Greek Holy Synod in Resistance," being reprinted by ROCOR. I take as ROCOR's statements those of its Holy Synod, its First Hiearchs or their representatives, and though there was agreement, I do not think/know that GHSiR was ever authorized to speak for ROCOR. Hence my question.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

"Orthodox Life" is the English language periodical from the monastery of Jordanville. Published with the Blessing of the First Hierarch. In 1995 that was Metropolitam Vitaly (Ustinov.)

It is translated from Greek (judging from what it says in the statement and after it). Does ROCOR issue statements in Greek? I took it as from the period of rapproachment between ROCOR and the "Greek Holy Synod in Resistance," being reprinted by ROCOR. I take as ROCOR's statements those of its Holy Synod, its First Hiearchs or their representatives, and though there was agreement, I do not think/know that GHSiR was ever authorized to speak for ROCOR. Hence my question.

What appears in "Orthodox Life" is presumed by readers to have approval of the First Hierarch since the periodical is published with his blessing. This type of Statement would certainly fall within the parameters of Metropolitan Vitaly's views on ecumenism.

So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?

LOL. Why the demand of the submission of the will and assent of faith to your supreme pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra?

Well obviously it wouldn't make much sense to restrict "submission of the will and assent of faith to [our] supreme pontiff" to cases when he is speaking ex cathedra, since Catholics are free to disagree about how many ex cathedra statements there have been.

A politician from Portland must have made these rules up. Let's just make it so that citizens are free to disagree how many laws issued by the legislature are actually binding. The thief will claim that the laws against theft are not, while the illegal gambling establishments will simply say that they freely disagree that the laws against them are binding, etc. Sounds like a win-win all the way around

So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?

LOL. Why the demand of the submission of the will and assent of faith to your supreme pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra?

Well obviously it wouldn't make much sense to restrict "submission of the will and assent of faith to [our] supreme pontiff" to cases when he is speaking ex cathedra, since Catholics are free to disagree about how many ex cathedra statements there have been.

A politician from Portland must have made these rules up. Let's just make it so that citizens are free to disagree how many laws issued by the legislature are actually binding. The thief will claim that the laws against theft are not, while the illegal gambling establishments will simply say that they freely disagree that the laws against them are binding, etc. Sounds like a win-win all the way around

I quite agree. To me, the idea that Catholics can ignore whatever isn't ex cathedra is just plain silly.

So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?

LOL. Why the demand of the submission of the will and assent of faith to your supreme pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra?

Well obviously it wouldn't make much sense to restrict "submission of the will and assent of faith to [our] supreme pontiff" to cases when he is speaking ex cathedra, since Catholics are free to disagree about how many ex cathedra statements there have been.

A politician from Portland must have made these rules up. Let's just make it so that citizens are free to disagree how many laws issued by the legislature are actually binding. The thief will claim that the laws against theft are not, while the illegal gambling establishments will simply say that they freely disagree that the laws against them are binding, etc. Sounds like a win-win all the way around

I quite agree. To me, the idea that Catholics can ignore whatever isn't ex cathedra is just plain silly.

I wonder what the point is, then, of drawing a distinction between regular statements and ex cathedra statements if we are bound to everything?

Father, this seems to have been pulled: I keep on getting a blank page, even with the way back machine.

I got a copy of the page. I've seen it before, so I had an idea of its problems, but couldn't remember in detail.

Btw, since this Chalcedonian Orthodox doesn't have conniptions with Pope Shenoudah (nor, AFAIK, does Pope Theodore), but does have problems with the theologies presented at orthodoxinfo on this, I don't take this as EO/OO private fora material (though of course, the mods can move it if they find differently).

Quote

Monophysites, or Non-Chalcedonians—Armenians, Copts and Ethiopians (Abyssinians), and Syrian and Malabarese Jacobites—have, since the conclusion of the Fourth Oecumenical Synod, been viewed by the Orthodox Church as heretical groups [1 Although many persons, at least in the aftermath of the Fourth Oecumenical Synod, were received into the Church as schismatics.].

Not quite.

The Fathers at Chalcedon did condemn Monophysticism that Eutyches preached. The Armenians, Copts and Ethiopians (Abyssians), and Syrian and Malabarese Jacobites never embraced that.

Then there is that little lump swept under the rug-the Henotikon, by which the EO Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Cyprus and (I presume) Georgia were in communion with the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox in 482. It didn't repudiate Chalcedon-which was passed over in silence-but it did explicitely specify the Twelve Chapters of Pope St. Cyril against Nestorius as dogma. Rome, with whom Orthodoxinfo usually (and rightly) has problems, alone refused, and anathematized the Patriarch of Constantinople. Old Rome sent to New Rome the "Formula of Hormisdas," its terms for reunion:

Quote

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse.

The Fathers of Chalcedon did NOT link Eutyches to Pope Dioscoros, nor did they anathematize Pope Dioscoros. They did depose Pope Dioscoros for ignoring the Council's summons, but they also restored Theodoret and Ibas, whom Pope Dioscoros had deposed for heresy. The Fathers of the Fifth Council rectified that error, while Pope Vigilius resisted, but the Fathers of the Sixth Council followed Pope Hormisdas here in misrepresenting the actions of the Fathers at Chalcedon (whose acts survive). If one misconstrues the actions of the Council as the Church's statement on Pope Dioscoros and his "Monophysism," as Pope Hormisdas does here, then we must, as Pope Vigilius did, contradict the Fathers of Constantinople II, and exonerate the Nestorian writings of Theodoret and the Letter attributed to Ibas, which the Fathers of Chalcedon didn't deal with, as the Non-Chalcedonians complained.

Quote

This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus [”the Cat”] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter [”the Fuller”] of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above.

Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.

http://becominghinged.wordpress.com/2007/06/01/formula-of-hormisdas/Pope Hormisdas demanded of the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople sign it, and every bishop who was to be in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, to seperate the "Monophysites" (by then Eutyches was long dead and anathamatized by the Miaphysites OO Non-Chalcedonians, and so there were no "monophysites") from the Orthodox as Orthodoxinfo advocates here. That wasn't what happened:

On another forum there is a thread on the OP here, on the "Eastern Catholicism Forum":Eastern Catholic opinion wanted on Formula of Hormisdas." Mardukm, of course, is busy there. I thought we might get to the truth here.

It is also noteworthy that not all of the eastern churches subscribed to the Formula. The Church of Jerussalem would not do so even under threat of imperial force. And it is important to recall that Justinian designated the church of Jerusalem as “the Mother of the Christian name, from which no one dares to separate.” (PL 63, 503) This is important to keep in mind, say during the monothelite controversy under the patriarch of Jersualem Sophronius as opposed to Pope Honorius of Rome.

As I've posted, Patriarch John wrote an introduction:The patriarch of Constantinople, John II of Cappadocia (518-20), signed only after affixing his own preamble to the text: “Know therefore, most holy one, that, according to what I have written, agreeing in the truth with thee, I too, loving peace, renounce all the heretics repudiated by thee: for I hold the most holy churches of the elder and of the new Rome to be one; I define that see of the apostle Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see.”

Dorotheus, bishop of Thessalonica, tore the Formula of Hormisdas in two in front of the people. He was brought to Constantinople for trial, exiled to Heraclea while his case was being considered, but then restored to his see in Thessalonica without ever signing the Formula. The emperor Justin wrote to Hormisdas that many found it difficult to sign the libellus: they “esteem life harder than death, if they should condemn those, when dead, whose life, when they were alive, was the glory of their people.” In reply, Pope Hormisdas urged the emperor to use force to compel them to sign.

According to Denny’s Papalism (referenced in Moss’s The Old Catholic Movement) the other patriarchates of the East refused to sign this statement, and were reconciled through a different agreement. Patriarch John was succeeded by Epiphanius in 520. Patriarch Epiphanius (520-35) wrote to the pope to explain that "very many of the holy bishops of Pontus and Asia and, above all, those referred to as of the Orient, found it to be difficult and even impossible to expunge the names of their former bishops … they were prepared to brave any danger rather than commit such a deed.” Pope Hormisdas wrote to Patriarch Epiphanius and gave him authority to act on his behalf in the East. In this letter, Hormisdas made restoration of communion dependent on agreeing to a declaration of faith that left unmentioned the claimed prerogatives of the bishop of Rome.http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/chron6.htm

The Vatican's present the Ecumenical Council (869:Only promoted as such when the Vatican, embroiled in its own investiture contraversy dug up an anti-Photian treatise (the fragmentary record of the 869 Council only survives in this) and its canons. This was post 1054) required the members to sign on to the Formula of Hormisdas, which is odd as the apologists of the Vatican claim it showed papal supremacy in the sixth century. The 869 was dealing with the fact that as many bishops as the emperor couldn't strong arm (Pope Hormisdas told him to use force), refused to sign, included bishops under Rome.

So the Pope of Rome demanded, and got, the subscription from the bishops who represented the East at Constantinople IV (869), which deposed the Pillar of Orthodoxy, EP Photios the Great. But the Fathers of the PanOrthodox Council of Constantinople IV (879) exonerated EP St. Photios the Great, and voided all the actions of Constantinonple IV (869), including the subscription to the Formula of Hormisdas. Orthodoxinfo is free to overstep the bounds the Fathers set up and subscribe to the Formula of Hormisdas, but I'll join the actions of the Metropolitan of Thessalonika Dorotheos.

Throughout the pages, Orthodoxinfo takes as a given the Formula of Hormisdas Eutyches=Dioscoros=Monophysite=OO, such that it doesn't seem to think it has to explain what its complaint is. Since the OO followed Dioscoros in anathamatizing Eutyches long ago, and never subscribed to Eutyches' Monophysism that the Fathers condemned at Chalcedon. Orthodoxinfo seems to recongize that problem, but tries to explain it away:

Quote

The Copts are Monophysites and thus heretics. Their Mysteries are invalid and, should they join the Orthodox Church, they must be received as non-Orthodox. Indeed, now that most Copts have rejected the errors of the Monophysite heresy, this is a time for their reunion with Orthodoxy.

The Copts rejected the errors of Eutyches' Monophysite heresy at the latest in 475, led by Pope Timothy II and Patriarch Peter of Antioch, whom the Henotikon restored, and 600-700 bishops at Ephesus, which the Formula of Hormisdas condemned along with their followers, the Non-Chalcedonian OO. that was the time for their reunion with Orthodoxy, and New Rome issued the Henotikon and Old Rome the Formula of Hormisdas. If we stand on the opposite side of the Henotikon and the Formula of Hormisdas, that doesn't leave much distance from the OO. And if the Copts "have rejected the errors of the Monophysite heresy" then there is a problem, as they can demonstrate a continuity to what they have been teaching for 1600 years, as we can demonstrate continuity over the same time within Chalcedonianism, whereas our fellow Chalcednians (to get back to the OP) who produced the Formula of Hormisdas cannot. How do the OO still resemble the Orthodox?

Hence the problem in the next paragraph:

Quote

Despite all the "scholarly discussion" trying to show that we are in fact "of the same Faith and Family as the Monophysites," the fact remains that these groups have not unreservedly accepted the Fourth through Seventh Oecumenical Synods (something which was required of them by the Orthodox participants in all prior reunion attempts throughout church history), nor have they decisively and conclusively renounced the teachings of Dioscoros, Severos, Eutyches, et. al.

The OO decisively and conclusively renounced the teachings of Eutyches, and the persistent invincible ignorance of that fact is the loose thread that unravels the rest, helped by trying to skip over the Henotikon, which did not "require of them....to accept the Fourth...Oecumenical Synod."

Quote

When those events occur (at the very least), union is imminent.

Indeed! The Henotikon was issued within the decade that the 6-702 bishops, condemned by the Formula of Hormisdas, solemly in council anathamatized Eutyches.

Quote

A Note to Coptic Christians: I fairly regularly receive emails expressing your frustation with being labeled as monophysite on this Web site. You are especially troubled by the article listed below entitled "Copts and Orthodoxy". You claim that you are "miaphysite", not monophysite. Your Christology is therefore supposedly Orthodox even though you do not accept the formulation agreed upon at the Council of Chalcedon (i.e., the Fourth Oecumenical Synod). In other words, "it is supposedly evident that nothing separates us in Faith, that the differences hitherto observed are due to a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the theological terminology, which the special theological experts now understand better than the holy Fathers, and that the original separation of the Non-Chalcedonians from the Church was due not to theological but to political reasons." [2] Thus you frequently demand that I remove these claims from my site.

To this I can only respond that, from the traditional perspective of the Orthodox Church, you are monophysite.

He can, of course, post anything he wants on his website. But the truth would be nice. He can call the Copts monophysites, equating that with the heresy of Eutyches, but repeating mantras is not an Orthodox practice, and beyond repitition of "Eutyches=Miaphysism," he is wanting in any argument in support thereof, but what he is doing is adding his signature to the Formula of Hormisdas.

Quote

This is how the Orthodox Church has always viewed the Coptic Church. In other words, to us your "miaphysitism" is essentially "monophysitism". Moreover, you have been wrongly led to believe—whether by your own teachers or by Orthodox ecumenists [3]—that the Orthodox Church has been mistaken,

The Fathers at Chalcedon misjudged Theodoret and Ibas, and Pope Dioscoros judged rightly. Did the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council-does that make them "ecumenists"?-wrongly led us to believe that the former's anti-Cyrillian writings and the letter attributed to the latter was heresy?

Quote

Some Orthodox clergy and teachers will agree with you, but I am persuaded by the Saints and teachers whose writings are listed below. I believe they represent the true teaching of the Orthodox Church. Thus, it would seem we are at an impasse regarding your request.

Oddly, he doesn't list the Formula of Hormisdas.

« Last Edit: July 01, 2011, 12:27:54 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Father, this seems to have been pulled: I keep on getting a blank page, even with the way back machine.

I got a copy of the page. I've seen it before, so I had an idea of its problems, but couldn't remember in detail.

Btw, since this Chalcedonian Orthodox doesn't have conniptions with Pope Shenoudah (nor, AFAIK, does Pope Theodore), but does have problems with the theologies presented at orthodoxinfo on this, I don't take this as EO/OO private fora material (though of course, the mods can move it if they find differently).

Quote

Monophysites, or Non-Chalcedonians—Armenians, Copts and Ethiopians (Abyssinians), and Syrian and Malabarese Jacobites—have, since the conclusion of the Fourth Oecumenical Synod, been viewed by the Orthodox Church as heretical groups [1 Although many persons, at least in the aftermath of the Fourth Oecumenical Synod, were received into the Church as schismatics.].

Not quite.

The Fathers at Chalcedon did condemn Monophysticism that Eutyches preached. The Armenians, Copts and Ethiopians (Abyssians), and Syrian and Malabarese Jacobites never embraced that.

Then there is that little lump swept under the rug-the Henotikon, by which the EO Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Cyprus and (I presume) Georgia were in communion with the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox in 482. It didn't repudiate Chalcedon-which was passed over in silence-but it did explicitely specify the Twelve Chapters of Pope St. Cyril against Nestorius as dogma. Rome, with whom Orthodoxinfo usually (and rightly) has problems, alone refused, and anathematized the Patriarch of Constantinople. Old Rome sent to New Rome the "Formula of Hormisdas," its terms for reunion:

Quote

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse.

The Fathers of Chalcedon did NOT link Eutyches to Pope Dioscoros, nor did they anathematize Pope Dioscoros. They did depose Pope Dioscoros for ignoring the Council's summons, but they also restored Theodoret and Ibas, whom Pope Dioscoros had deposed for heresy. The Fathers of the Fifth Council rectified that error, while Pope Vigilius resisted, but the Fathers of the Sixth Council followed Pope Hormisdas here in misrepresenting the actions of the Fathers at Chalcedon (whose acts survive). If one misconstrues the actions of the Council as the Church's statement on Pope Dioscoros and his "Monophysism," as Pope Hormisdas does here, then we must, as Pope Vigilius did, contradict the Fathers of Constantinople II, and exonerate the Nestorian writings of Theodoret and the Letter attributed to Ibas, which the Fathers of Chalcedon didn't deal with, as the Non-Chalcedonians complained.

Quote

This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus [”the Cat”] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter [”the Fuller”] of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above.

Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.

http://becominghinged.wordpress.com/2007/06/01/formula-of-hormisdas/Pope Hormisdas demanded of the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople sign it, and every bishop who was to be in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, to seperate the "Monophysites" (by then Eutyches was long dead and anathamatized by the Miaphysites OO Non-Chalcedonians, and so there were no "monophysites") from the Orthodox as Orthodoxinfo advocates here. That wasn't what happened:

On another forum there is a thread on the OP here, on the "Eastern Catholicism Forum":Eastern Catholic opinion wanted on Formula of Hormisdas." Mardukm, of course, is busy there. I thought we might get to the truth here.

It is also noteworthy that not all of the eastern churches subscribed to the Formula. The Church of Jerussalem would not do so even under threat of imperial force. And it is important to recall that Justinian designated the church of Jerusalem as “the Mother of the Christian name, from which no one dares to separate.” (PL 63, 503) This is important to keep in mind, say during the monothelite controversy under the patriarch of Jersualem Sophronius as opposed to Pope Honorius of Rome.

As I've posted, Patriarch John wrote an introduction:The patriarch of Constantinople, John II of Cappadocia (518-20), signed only after affixing his own preamble to the text: “Know therefore, most holy one, that, according to what I have written, agreeing in the truth with thee, I too, loving peace, renounce all the heretics repudiated by thee: for I hold the most holy churches of the elder and of the new Rome to be one; I define that see of the apostle Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see.”

Dorotheus, bishop of Thessalonica, tore the Formula of Hormisdas in two in front of the people. He was brought to Constantinople for trial, exiled to Heraclea while his case was being considered, but then restored to his see in Thessalonica without ever signing the Formula. The emperor Justin wrote to Hormisdas that many found it difficult to sign the libellus: they “esteem life harder than death, if they should condemn those, when dead, whose life, when they were alive, was the glory of their people.” In reply, Pope Hormisdas urged the emperor to use force to compel them to sign.

According to Denny’s Papalism (referenced in Moss’s The Old Catholic Movement) the other patriarchates of the East refused to sign this statement, and were reconciled through a different agreement. Patriarch John was succeeded by Epiphanius in 520. Patriarch Epiphanius (520-35) wrote to the pope to explain that "very many of the holy bishops of Pontus and Asia and, above all, those referred to as of the Orient, found it to be difficult and even impossible to expunge the names of their former bishops … they were prepared to brave any danger rather than commit such a deed.” Pope Hormisdas wrote to Patriarch Epiphanius and gave him authority to act on his behalf in the East. In this letter, Hormisdas made restoration of communion dependent on agreeing to a declaration of faith that left unmentioned the claimed prerogatives of the bishop of Rome.http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/chron6.htm

The Vatican's present the Ecumenical Council (869:Only promoted as such when the Vatican, embroiled in its own investiture contraversy dug up an anti-Photian treatise (the fragmentary record of the 869 Council only survives in this) and its canons. This was post 1054) required the members to sign on to the Formula of Hormisdas, which is odd as the apologists of the Vatican claim it showed papal supremacy in the sixth century. The 869 was dealing with the fact that as many bishops as the emperor couldn't strong arm (Pope Hormisdas told him to use force), refused to sign, included bishops under Rome.

So the Pope of Rome demanded, and got, the subscription from the bishops who represented the East at Constantinople IV (869), which deposed the Pillar of Orthodoxy, EP Photios the Great. But the Fathers of the PanOrthodox Council of Constantinople IV (879) exonerated EP St. Photios the Great, and voided all the actions of Constantinonple IV (869), including the subscription to the Formula of Hormisdas. Orthodoxinfo is free to overstep the bounds the Fathers set up and subscribe to the Formula of Hormisdas, but I'll join the actions of the Metropolitan of Thessalonika Dorotheos.

Throughout the pages, Orthodoxinfo takes as a given the Formula of Hormisdas Eutyches=Dioscoros=Monophysite=OO, such that it doesn't seem to think it has to explain what its complaint is. Since the OO followed Dioscoros in anathamatizing Eutyches long ago, and never subscribed to Eutyches' Monophysism that the Fathers condemned at Chalcedon. Orthodoxinfo seems to recongize that problem, but tries to explain it away:

Quote

The Copts are Monophysites and thus heretics. Their Mysteries are invalid and, should they join the Orthodox Church, they must be received as non-Orthodox. Indeed, now that most Copts have rejected the errors of the Monophysite heresy, this is a time for their reunion with Orthodoxy.

The Copts rejected the errors of Eutyches' Monophysite heresy at the latest in 475, led by Pope Timothy II and Patriarch Peter of Antioch, whom the Henotikon restored, and 600-700 bishops at Ephesus, which the Formula of Hormisdas condemned along with their followers, the Non-Chalcedonian OO. that was the time for their reunion with Orthodoxy, and New Rome issued the Henotikon and Old Rome the Formula of Hormisdas. If we stand on the opposite side of the Henotikon and the Formula of Hormisdas, that doesn't leave much distance from the OO. And if the Copts "have rejected the errors of the Monophysite heresy" then there is a problem, as they can demonstrate a continuity to what they have been teaching for 1600 years, as we can demonstrate continuity over the same time within Chalcedonianism, whereas our fellow Chalcednians (to get back to the OP) who produced the Formula of Hormisdas cannot. How do the OO still resemble the Orthodox?

Hence the problem in the next paragraph:

Quote

Despite all the "scholarly discussion" trying to show that we are in fact "of the same Faith and Family as the Monophysites," the fact remains that these groups have not unreservedly accepted the Fourth through Seventh Oecumenical Synods (something which was required of them by the Orthodox participants in all prior reunion attempts throughout church history), nor have they decisively and conclusively renounced the teachings of Dioscoros, Severos, Eutyches, et. al.

The OO decisively and conclusively renounced the teachings of Eutyches, and the persistent invincible ignorance of that fact is the loose thread that unravels the rest, helped by trying to skip over the Henotikon, which did not "require of them....to accept the Fourth...Oecumenical Synod."

Quote

When those events occur (at the very least), union is imminent.

Indeed! The Henotikon was issued within the decade that the 6-702 bishops, condemned by the Formula of Hormisdas, solemly in council anathamatized Eutyches.

Quote

A Note to Coptic Christians: I fairly regularly receive emails expressing your frustation with being labeled as monophysite on this Web site. You are especially troubled by the article listed below entitled "Copts and Orthodoxy". You claim that you are "miaphysite", not monophysite. Your Christology is therefore supposedly Orthodox even though you do not accept the formulation agreed upon at the Council of Chalcedon (i.e., the Fourth Oecumenical Synod). In other words, "it is supposedly evident that nothing separates us in Faith, that the differences hitherto observed are due to a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the theological terminology, which the special theological experts now understand better than the holy Fathers, and that the original separation of the Non-Chalcedonians from the Church was due not to theological but to political reasons." [2] Thus you frequently demand that I remove these claims from my site.

To this I can only respond that, from the traditional perspective of the Orthodox Church, you are monophysite.

He can, of course, post anything he wants on his website. But the truth would be nice. He can call the Copts monophysites, equating that with the heresy of Eutyches, but repeating mantras is not an Orthodox practice, and beyond repitition of "Eutyches=Miaphysism," he is wanting in any argument in support thereof, but what he is doing is adding his signature to the Formula of Hormisdas.

Quote

This is how the Orthodox Church has always viewed the Coptic Church. In other words, to us your "miaphysitism" is essentially "monophysitism". Moreover, you have been wrongly led to believe—whether by your own teachers or by Orthodox ecumenists [3]—that the Orthodox Church has been mistaken,

The Fathers at Chalcedon misjudged Theodoret and Ibas, and Pope Dioscoros judged rightly. Did the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council-does that make them "ecumenists"?-wrongly led us to believe that the former's anti-Cyrillian writings and the letter attributed to the latter was heresy?

Quote

Some Orthodox clergy and teachers will agree with you, but I am persuaded by the Saints and teachers whose writings are listed below. I believe they represent the true teaching of the Orthodox Church. Thus, it would seem we are at an impasse regarding your request.

Any confirmation from the episcopal level or the synodal level would be welcome.

Agreed, but I wouldn't bet on any forthcoming.

There is a rough divison between Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, etc. on the one hand, and Jerusalem (which barely recognizes its Arab flock), Russia, Church of Greece, etc. on the other. The former lives with OO, the latter for the most part see the OO as an academic exercise. The former have already concluded agreements recognizing the Holy Mysteries of the OO, the latter question that. There is an interesting claim I've seen:

Quote

Gukas Shirvanyan (Luka Shirvanov), the first head of the local Armenian community, requested Empress Anna Ioannovna to allow a construction of a church in the courtyard of this house in the Third Line of the Vasilievsky Island. On 18 January 1740, a permission was given ("This request is granted" was an official resolution); however, the church has never been completed...On 2 May 1770, granting a request made by Ivan Lazarev (1735–1801), the head of the Armenian community and an important statesman and enlightener, Catherine the Great allocated a lot for a construction of an Armenian church, on the north side of Nevsky Avenue. The community immediately started fund raising. The construction of the church and the adjacent parochial buildings was supervised by the author of the design, Saint Petersburg's major architect Georg Friedrich Veldten (1735–1801). After 8 years, in 1779, opposite the then not yet completed Gostiny Dvor, a slender and smart church emerged; later, an ensemble of the Armenian community's buildings formed around it.

The gracious Church of St. Catherine in Nevsky Avenue was constructed to fit the capital's state splendour and in accordance with the traditions of the Early Russian Classicism, becoming one of the marvellous examples of this architectural style....On 18 February 1780, Archbishop Ovsep Argutyants (Iosif Argutinsky), the spiritual leader of Russia's Armenians, consecrated the Church, giving it the name of St. Catherine. The ceremony was attended by Duke Grigory Potemkin. The people present were handed the text of the sermon entitled "The Speech for Consecrating the Armenian Church in Saint Petersburg, Delivered by Archbishop Iosif." The text contained gratitude towards "the glorious Russian country, where our people dwell", towards Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, saying that the latter had "opened the gates of deliverance into Russia" and that "this church is named in her honour". The empress did not attend the consecration, but in the following years visited the Church many times and commissioned prayers....In the late 1920s, the Church was shut down, and it then hosted warehouses, offices and workshops, which resulted in desolation and significant destruction. In August 1992, the Church was handed over back to the Armenian community....On 12 July 2000, the restored Church was consecrated jointly by the heads of the two related and allied churches (Alexius II, the patriarch of Russia, and Garegin II, the supreme patriarch-catholicos of Armenia).

The real question is something official and across all the local Churches coming out. One EO Metropolitan told me personally that the problem is that "no one wants to die," the EO in Egypt fearing being swallowed up by the Copts, and the Syriac OO fearing being overwhelmed by the Antiochian EO. But that's a private statement, what Orthodoxinfo could characterize "personal, according to the theological preferences and proclivities of each member, based primarily on the contemporary bibliography" and would "accuse that has been adulterated by the ecumenist spirit." As for a "corporate and systematic" offiical confirmation "based on the sources of the Orthodox Faith, the texts of the Synods and Fathers" signed on by all the Orthodox Churches, that hasn't arrived yet.

It was recorded officially that "When this [the Henotikon] had been read, all the Alexandrians united themselves to the holy catholic and apostolic church."http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/evagrius_3_book3.htmBut officially Rome, in which we EO were/are in communion with, stuck to the Formula of Hormisdas, which the Fathers voided at Constantinople IV (879). It is as one hierarch told me, seems to be a case where resolution is going to have to come from the bottom up, and agreements enforced from the top haven't worked.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth